PDA

View Full Version : Player Help How do you get people to work together?



Ralanr
2015-03-31, 07:21 PM
The title is kinda self explanatory. My group just had this huge fight, with one of us almost dying (Actually pretty freaking close to it. We're talking 0 health here (it's 5e, but I felt the general forums were better for this question). Thing is, we didn't really stay together in the fight. There are six of us, one flew off with a powerful npc to keep him busy protecting a group of bystanders (Fair) and never really teamed up with anyone in combat. Me and a friend tried working together, but we had to split up due to how squishy he ended up being. Two people stayed back, one focusing entirely on one thing while the other...kinda bodyguarded her, not well considering the body guard was the healer and almost died (Two of us ran up to them, near it. But it felt too close). There was some teamwork, but not it was too close for comfort.

So how do you get people to work together? I know there are a lot of varying factors (Like the RP of the characters) but do you have a basic strategy to get people to work together? Cause honestly I was thinking about making my character take charge of the group next session. In the sense of "Lone wolves don't last long. Packs do."

Lappy9001
2015-03-31, 07:29 PM
Just talk to everyone out of character and agree to work together even if there are conflicts with RP. D&D is shared experience and you can afford to be a little meta if it means everyone having fun.

I usually apply this to adventurers meeting up in the first place since lots of RP personalities aren't super trusting.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-31, 07:35 PM
Practice and experience. Arrange the game so that if the players lose in combat they can still keep playing, but suffer some other kind of loss. There are lots of ways to do that, one common default being Raise Dead and the cost that incurs. It could be as easy as just having backup characters available that can be easily slotted in. Perhaps there is some in-game consequence such as failure of the quest or some other setback.

Once that's arranged, let people play however they want. If they fail, then they fail, and the game doesn't come to a crashing halt, which means they can try again. The consequences shouldn't be hugely unpleasant, but generate just enough tension that the players have incentive to get better, but don't have to try to be absolutely perfect in order to have fun. They've already learned some lessons and they'll quickly learn more, so long as the game remains primarily enjoyable and not frustrating or annoying. Having a leader telling one what to do, for instance, can be annoying.

Good luck.

goto124
2015-03-31, 08:10 PM
Why are they not working together already?

OOC problem to be dealt with OOCly.

'My character would do that' is never a reason.

Ralanr
2015-03-31, 08:18 PM
Why are they not working together already?

OOC problem to be dealt with OOCly.

'My character would do that' is never a reason.

Oh there is no OOC problem. We just ended up fighting like a bunch of brave individuals rather than as a group. Normally that's fine, but we separated ourselves rather far.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-31, 08:30 PM
At least you guys were all fighting the same enemy. You gotta love it when the closet psycho of the group decides to PvP during combat.

Ralanr
2015-03-31, 08:33 PM
At least you guys were all fighting the same enemy. You gotta love it when the closet psycho of the group decides to PvP during combat.

Yes and no. Two sides, multiple enemies. God PVP in the middle of combat sounds horrifying.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-31, 08:36 PM
Oh there is no OOC problem. We just ended up fighting like a bunch of brave individuals rather than as a group. Normally that's fine, but we separated ourselves rather far. If it worked, that would be pretty cool, with everyone doing their own cool, brave thing. Maybe you should all just work on being being on your own, or ask the GM if the fights can be designed to make that kind of approach work. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to play that way, and I don't see why it can't be worked with.

Ralanr
2015-03-31, 08:42 PM
If it worked, that would be pretty cool, with everyone doing their own cool, brave thing. Maybe you should all just work on being being on your own, or ask the GM if the fights can be designed to make that kind of approach work. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to play that way, and I don't see why it can't be worked with.

True. Still wouldn't hurt to bring it up though.

aspekt
2015-03-31, 08:51 PM
Threaten, cajole, bribe, seduce...

DigoDragon
2015-03-31, 09:07 PM
My group just had this huge fight, with one of us almost dying

At first I swore you were quote a game I'm in right now. Nearly the same thing went on!
(I am the almost dying one in it)

As a long time GM, if the issue is just the characters working together, then you gotta get everyone to have some commonality they can get behind. And not just the GM can work on it, I encourage the Players to design their characters to where they might have some loose connections with one or more other PCs before the campaign begins. One campaign I was a player in, the GM made us all roll initiative. Then in a circle starting with highest initiative each player has to add one tidbit to their character's background relating to how they met/have known the next PC in the line.

When PCs start having things in common, the GM can use those connections as story elements to get the PCs to work together.

Ralanr
2015-03-31, 09:26 PM
At first I swore you were quote a game I'm in right now. Nearly the same thing went on!
(I am the almost dying one in it)

As a long time GM, if the issue is just the characters working together, then you gotta get everyone to have some commonality they can get behind. And not just the GM can work on it, I encourage the Players to design their characters to where they might have some loose connections with one or more other PCs before the campaign begins. One campaign I was a player in, the GM made us all roll initiative. Then in a circle starting with highest initiative each player has to add one tidbit to their character's background relating to how they met/have known the next PC in the line.

When PCs start having things in common, the GM can use those connections as story elements to get the PCs to work together.

That's a really good idea for future character building. I'll mention that!

jaydubs
2015-03-31, 09:28 PM
I've seen teamwork come together in a couple of ways:

1. We talk out-of-character about what we're going to do. Some games it's common, some it's discouraged. But it certainly makes things easier to coordinate. The downside is that it does break down immersion a bit. And sometimes passive players end up having their actions chosen by other people. The upside is it helps players who don't know the system or rules to learn basic tactics (which vary system by system).

2. Someone or someones (not always the same) takes charge and directs the chaos. But this requires a character capable of leading (in-character), and characters willing to follow (again, in-character). It also requires that player OOC to be knowledgeable enough to make those types of decisions, and the other players to be willing OOC to follow directions.

3. Players just stick together, do what they do best, and stay out of each other's way. With a few quick communications (sometimes IC, sometimes OOC) to handle unusual situations. Many experienced players do point 1 and 2 without even thinking about it. And point 3 develops either by talking about capabilities with each other, or playing a few combats and seeing what other characters can do.

NichG
2015-03-31, 09:42 PM
Start with passive things, give other players reasons to know what the other characters are capable of and provide, and then move towards active things.

For example, I was in a campaign where there was some serious Marshal/Cha-buffing cheese going on, mostly because that character was using it to buff themselves. But we learned that we could go to her and say 'hey, I'd like a +X for this spell research project' or things like that. It didn't cost her anything, and she didn't have to come up with it, because we saw her character's ability as a resource we could use. That is to say, she didn't have to proactively decide to help us, we could proactively decide to help ourselves by way of her abilities.

So at a system design level, I'd start by arranging things so that everyone has some or other form of buff aura or other passive assist abilities that are really nice compared to what characters can do for themselves. Have the early-game active things be underwhelming compared to what they can do when buffed, and have the buffs primarily cross-synergize rather than self-synergize. I'd make the auras be somewhat limited in radius or scope, so that the other players are encouraged strongly to think about where their allies are on the field and how to take advantage of that. Then loosen up on that design, injecting more reasonable active abilities but also active assist abilities and see if it takes.

You may get a few players who just don't get it - they go in expecting something very strongly, and when the game requires something different they'll feel like somehow the game is unrealistic or unreasonable or just hard to understand. So you have to watch that carefully and make sure to support the idea both mechanically and thematically, and very carefully design encounters to highlight certain aspects of cooperation or how the system works. The more you can spin things positively rather than negatively, the better - e.g. 'they did better than you because their teamwork was really good' versus 'you did so poorly because your teamwork was bad'. A player who perceives themselves as failing will generally learn less than a player who perceives someone else as succeeding. In the latter case, not only is it less discouraging in general, but there's an obvious model that can be emulated to improve whereas the former case can feel like improvement is impossible or that the expectations are unreasonable.

veti
2015-03-31, 10:24 PM
I don't see how everyone's saying this is an OOC problem. This is an in-character problem, this is a problem that real live people in your position would be having, and they'd be having the conversations/doing the planning in-character to deal with it.

"Working as a team" isn't automatic, it's something you have to work at. Sit down and, while rigorously avoiding any discussion of "blame" or anyone "doing anything wrong", discuss what went wrong in that combat. Talk about your roles, how they complement each other, what (if any) gaps there are in your team and how you can cover them.

It sounds like you've got several rather squishy characters, which may be the root of the problem - if you don't have sufficient tanks to attract all the damage, then the squishies are going to take hits, and you need a plan for dealing with that. That might mean reallocating resources (potion distribution, etc.).

But I see it as very much an IC problem.

Ralanr
2015-03-31, 10:57 PM
But I see it as very much an IC problem.

Yes. This is not an OOC problem. I'm playing with a bunch of friends. It's just a IC problem.

I'm ashamed to say that I'm the tank, and I'm not ashamed to say that I was also at fault for lack of teamwork (I ran off on my own also. We've been using Roleplay more for reasons and my character had a...rage inducing flashback moment).

Lacco
2015-04-01, 02:02 AM
My GM solution always is: get them in such trouble that they have to start cooperating. Tell the natural leader (every party has one, usually you can tell - it's the guy who finally says "ok, we do this"; if you can't point anyone out, odds are you are the guy) to take charge. Warn them and let them lose some battles (nonlethally, with enemies having a good laugh and just leaving amused) which they could win, show them by example cooperation through NPCs. Players I met sometimes take the advice and forget it, but if they see a tactic that works against them, they usually try to replicate it.

What I see here is a problem I have with D&D-like games. HPs don't hurt. The players don't care about getting someone to 0 HP (which is something like "oh, he's lying down, bleeding from multiple wounds, unconscious..." "aaaah, what? He's just down, never mind").
I would tell players, that for the next battle we treat HP like wounds. Give grievous wound description for each of them, including bleeding (each wound bleeds if not tended to, let's say 1/10 of HP inflicted, cummulatively), shock/pain (each 1/10 of HP loss causes -1 to rolls or something like that) and criticals giving them something even more hurful (dislocated shoulder, not letting them use the arm/use the arm with -10? check. long slash on face, getting -1 to CHA? check. blood in the eyes due to bleeding from a head wound, making them half-blind? check!).
Warn them about these, do it only for one battle. See if their reactions change.
For my players, it worked quite beautifully. They now fight in pairs, back to back, use terrain, work together. But that's not a player-centered solution. It's a GM's call.

Oh and I know this solution won't sit well with everyone - it's just a suggestion.

My player solution would be: arrange a short scene with GM - a talk by the fire as they tend to the wounds, asking why did the group do so horribly. Asking what they think we could do better (IC).
Ask the GM to provide several encounters that are quite hard to win without cooperation, but which you can tackle on your own rules (attack on an ogre camp? basically - the opposition is fixed to a point and doesn't know about the party, you can discuss tactics, approach and decide what to do, IC).
And maybe even OOC discuss with the group some tactics.
I would propose that someone takes a lead. Let the party vote for a leader, if there is no one who will get immediately into the position by consensus.

Mastikator
2015-04-01, 03:57 AM
In my experience if telling someone to do something doesn't work then tricking into it isn't worth it. "This is not about your personal glory, you need to work together as a group"

Keltest
2015-04-01, 06:18 AM
My party has had this problem a few times, and in my experience the best solution has almost always been the DM sitting them all down and making them talk together about what theyre going to do. Force them to make a plan by giving them some time before things all go downhill. Make sure they know where the fighters are going to be stationed, have the wizards locate something to hide behind (like a fighter, for example), and give the archers a good vantage point. From the DM's point of view, if you have to nudge them into thinking about that sort of thing "Looking around, you see a tree that would give your archer a good view of the battlefield." so be it. Eventually they'll learn to look for those things on their own, but until then youll have to sort of feed it to them.

M Placeholder
2015-04-01, 06:38 AM
Yes. This is not an OOC problem. I'm playing with a bunch of friends. It's just a IC problem.

I'm ashamed to say that I'm the tank, and I'm not ashamed to say that I was also at fault for lack of teamwork (I ran off on my own also. We've been using Roleplay more for reasons and my character had a...rage inducing flashback moment).

Thats okay. Never be ashamed of saying that things were youre fault. Does you character realise this? If so, have him talk to the others, explain the situation and say that you will learn.

Remember, this is not a party splitting thing. Just get together, come up with a battle and a marching plan, and set roles for each person.

You haven't attacked each other, none of you has commited an act of stupid evil, none of you have slipped into an alignment that means that you cannot work together.

Just talk things over, and make sure you learn from this.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-01, 07:56 AM
Leadership is the key. You should definitely step in if you see a power vacuum and no one else is taking the reins. Dictate (suggest, request) what everyone else should do or at least help the group come up with a consensus of pre-planned strategies based on their areas of control.

People crave direction, especially when its absence is painfully obvious. You don't have to be heavy handed about it. Just a nudge is sometimes all it takes.

Keltest
2015-04-01, 08:03 AM
Leadership is the key. You should definitely step in if you see a power vacuum and no one else is taking the reins. Dictate (suggest, request) what everyone else should do or at least help the group come up with a consensus of pre-planned strategies based on their areas of control.

People crave direction, especially when its absence is painfully obvious. You don't have to be heavy handed about it. Just a nudge is sometimes all it takes.


Especially as a tank, youre in a good position to affect the flow of combat. Work with any other tank to run interference for your glass cannons so they can do their jobs, and make it clear to the DPS that that is what youre doing. Even if you aren't flat out telling them to cast a spell, they can usually figure out that they are safe to do their thing from your efforts to make them safe.

Beta Centauri
2015-04-01, 08:47 AM
It's an OOC problem in that it's affecting everyone's enjoyment of the game, not in that the OOC personalities are clashing, or anything. Sure, it's probably also affecting the character's enjoyment of their lives, but as they're not real, and bad things happening to them can be very interesting for the people who are real, the players.

You could have the characters discuss the issue in-character, but that's very likely to cloud the players' actual preferences about how the game goes, particularly if part of the problem is that a player is playing a character that's not right for them, or some other OOC issue.

So, at least discuss it out-of-character. If you also discuss it in-character, cool, but don't rely on that as a solver of a metagame issue.

Thrudd
2015-04-01, 08:56 AM
Yes. This is not an OOC problem. I'm playing with a bunch of friends. It's just a IC problem.

I'm ashamed to say that I'm the tank, and I'm not ashamed to say that I was also at fault for lack of teamwork (I ran off on my own also. We've been using Roleplay more for reasons and my character had a...rage inducing flashback moment).

Here's what your character can say: "hey, friends. We almost were defeated in that last battle, I think it may be wise to begin coordinating our actions more as a team. I lost my temper and went off alone, I won't let that happen again. Let's come up with a battle plan..."

GungHo
2015-04-01, 09:25 AM
Here's what your character can say: "hey, friends. We almost were defeated in that last battle, I think it may be wise to begin coordinating our actions more as a team. I lost my temper and went off alone, I won't let that happen again. Let's come up with a battle plan..."

Exactly. That kind of screw up is a great team building exercise and it should help bring them together. If they (the characters) don't get that on their own... the DM can always have a fortune teller, sage, or bard point it out in any number of ways. If it's still not absorbed, then start greasing people until someone rolls a replacement that gets it.

Beta Centauri
2015-04-01, 10:06 AM
Exactly. That kind of screw up is a great team building exercise and it should help bring them together. If they (the characters) don't get that on their own... the DM can always have a fortune teller, sage, or bard point it out in any number of ways. If it's still not absorbed, then start greasing people until someone rolls a replacement that gets it. What if the players simply don't want to fight as a team? Make the game as unpleasant for them as possible until they do something they didn't want to do in the first place?

DigoDragon
2015-04-01, 10:39 AM
What if the players simply don't want to fight as a team? Make the game as unpleasant for them as possible until they do something they didn't want to do in the first place?

I'm personally wary of being in games where the GM allows PCs to be lone wolves instead of team players. On the flip side, getting forced to do something can sour a player's experience. Best to bring this sort of question up at the beginning of a campaign.

Beta Centauri
2015-04-01, 11:01 AM
I'm personally wary of being in games where the GM allows PCs to be lone wolves instead of team players. On the flip side, getting forced to do something can sour a player's experience. Best to bring this sort of question up at the beginning of a campaign. Probably, but even when things are addressed up front it can take some time for everyone's true preferences to be revealed and for misunderstandings to be worked out. If everyone wants to be a teams but everyone thinks that everyone is going to follow their lead, then the result is going look like a lot of lone wolves. And it might be more benign: everyone might just want to take the course that maximizes their own character's coolness in a way that teamwork might not.

NichG
2015-04-01, 11:58 AM
Generally what the players want isn't going to be specifically 'I want to be a team' or 'I want to not be a team'. It'll be things like 'I want to get my moment of awesome' or 'I want to be able to try out the ideas I come up with' or things like that. Some of these things lend themselves towards behavior that reinforces or disperses teamwork, but that doesn't mean it's the only way for it to play out - it just requires the right kind of creative scenario design to redirect those things one way or another.

For example, if someone is being a lone wolf because they want to have the leeway to sink or swim based on their own cleverness, you can enable that while encouraging teamwork by having scenarios that require multiple things to be done in different places but fairly synchronized, and with lots of uncertainty in the details. The point would be to encourage a structure that creates teamwork by assigning responsibilities rather than by assigning specific methods or actions - e.g. 'okay, its your responsibility to get the drawbridge down within 3 rounds!' rather than 'okay, first round you're going to climb the wall to the guard post and sneak attack the guard, then you're going to ...'.

Now, if the players really deeply just want to be lone wolves and fundamentally object to teamwork, there's less you can do. But usually its not that extreme.

DigoDragon
2015-04-01, 12:08 PM
Probably, but even when things are addressed up front it can take some time for everyone's true preferences to be revealed and for misunderstandings to be worked out.

Generally yeah. I know it always takes me a bit of time to get my character's personality solidified after I've built them. At least communicating things early gives better odds of a campaign where everyone successfully has fun. It's okay if on occasion PCs want to split off and do their thing. Everyone deserved that 15-seconds of fame.



Now, if the players really deeply just want to be lone wolves and fundamentally object to teamwork, there's less you can do. But usually its not that extreme.

That's the kind of lone wolf thing I was specifically pointing at. I've seen it, and it doesn't end pretty in my games. :x

Beta Centauri
2015-04-01, 12:17 PM
That's the kind of lone wolf thing I was specifically pointing at. I've seen it, and it doesn't end pretty in my games. :x There's no in-game reason why it can't work. It's just that teamwork is assumed to be the goal, and challenges are built to reward it, and punish poor teamwork. Challenges built to punish a team and reward lone wolves are probably possible, and in that case the approach would be not just fine but ideal.

NichG
2015-04-01, 12:44 PM
There's no in-game reason why it can't work. It's just that teamwork is assumed to be the goal, and challenges are built to reward it, and punish poor teamwork. Challenges built to punish a team and reward lone wolves are probably possible, and in that case the approach would be not just fine but ideal.

You get this situation if characters have significantly different victory conditions, and when there's lots of secrecy. I've made it work for a one-shot, but it tends to be a more frustrating gaming experience in campaign form - at some point the in-game tensions run up against the meta-game considerations and the winner ends up being whichever player is least considerate of their fellow players' enjoyment. In one-shot form, there's less of a feeling that you have to try to keep the group together and there's also less 'if I do something to screw him over now, he's going to hold it against me for the next 20 sessions' kind of feeling.

veti
2015-04-01, 02:02 PM
There's no in-game reason why it can't work. It's just that teamwork is assumed to be the goal, and challenges are built to reward it, and punish poor teamwork. Challenges built to punish a team and reward lone wolves are probably possible, and in that case the approach would be not just fine but ideal.

There are challenges of all sizes in the world. Unless you're talking about stupidly high-level casters - and arguably, even then - a team is greater than the sum of its parts. I would say it's up to the players. If they want to pose about the place being individuals and looking cool, there's plenty of scope for them to do that - they just have to search out easier encounters, that's all.

Teamwork would allow them to deal with bigger problems, maybe achieve something more worthwhile. But it's not compulsory - it's entirely up to them if they want to do that.

Nightcanon
2015-04-01, 02:28 PM
Who is going to be the party strategist? Out of character it can be whoever has most experience of the game or the person to whom such things come most naturally (though all but the most naive newcomer can presumably see that wandering off alone and getting surrounded by 8 rogues, or all bunching together in the face of a breath weapon might not be the most sensible thing to do).
In character, there are many ways to spin a PC having a degree of tactical smarts: wis-based casters have their common sense, +/- a degree of martial training (cleric) or environmental/ naturalist nous (druid). Wizards are smart and can work out tactics; rogues are sneaky, ditto. Bards recall the saga of the master tactician King Tacitus X, who famously did x,y and z in different situations. If they went to the same fighter school as Roy, fighters should all have some tactical grounding, while even a low Int, low Wis barbarian can contribute along the lines of "when foe is many, Tribe of Lion go to hilltop and make shield-wall. When foe is strong but only one, we surround on all sides and all attack as one".
Sit down OOC character and discuss strategy and tactics. Sit down IC if necessary too; this can signal to your DM that a short-medium term party goal is to develop as a team in combat; perhaps they can design a sequence of encounters that allows you to do that.

Beta Centauri
2015-04-01, 02:44 PM
There are challenges of all sizes in the world. Unless you're talking about stupidly high-level casters - and arguably, even then - a team is greater than the sum of its parts. I would say it's up to the players. If they want to pose about the place being individuals and looking cool, there's plenty of scope for them to do that - they just have to search out easier encounters, that's all. They don't have to search them out, and they don't have to be "easier." The GM can plan to put them against different kinds of challenges, such as ones that require efforts on multiple separated fronts at once.

Ralanr
2015-04-01, 03:38 PM
Who is going to be the party strategist? Out of character it can be whoever has most experience of the game or the person to whom such things come most naturally (though all but the most naive newcomer can presumably see that wandering off alone and getting surrounded by 8 rogues, or all bunching together in the face of a breath weapon might not be the most sensible thing to do).
In character, there are many ways to spin a PC having a degree of tactical smarts: wis-based casters have their common sense, +/- a degree of martial training (cleric) or environmental/ naturalist nous (druid). Wizards are smart and can work out tactics; rogues are sneaky, ditto. Bards recall the saga of the master tactician King Tacitus X, who famously did x,y and z in different situations. If they went to the same fighter school as Roy, fighters should all have some tactical grounding, while even a low Int, low Wis barbarian can contribute along the lines of "when foe is many, Tribe of Lion go to hilltop and make shield-wall. When foe is strong but only one, we surround on all sides and all attack as one".
Sit down OOC character and discuss strategy and tactics. Sit down IC if necessary too; this can signal to your DM that a short-medium term party goal is to develop as a team in combat; perhaps they can design a sequence of encounters that allows you to do that.

Originally I believed my barb would end up being the strategist based on his combat experience (And he has Wis of 14. So it's decent). But after thinking about it and bringing it up separately with others (Sadly not all at once. I just wanted to make sure they knew OOC what my character was going to bring up before hand so they don't feel too out of place. We'll probably discuss it more when we're all grouped up) I think it's better to emphasize a simple combat philosophy.

Basically "Make sure you have someones back and someone has yours" type of deal. As interesting as it would be to shout orders or whatever, that's too forceful and can actually make things worse (Heck I've been the kind of person to completely ignore orders IC because I had no respect for the guy demanding them). Encouraging mutual respect and trust in combat seems like the best place to start.

GungHo
2015-04-02, 08:58 AM
What if the players simply don't want to fight as a team? Make the game as unpleasant for them as possible until they do something they didn't want to do in the first place?

It's a cooperative game. I guess you could run a series of scenes where everyone is split up, but that's a hell of a lot of work on the DM to coordinate if that's full time and also keeps part of the room twiddling their thumbs. If you as a player don't want to play a cooperative game with other people, then I'm not sure why you're playing a cooperative game with other people.